Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sudesh Bala vs Smt. Indu Bala (2025:Rj-Jd:12237) on 4 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12237]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 365/2000
Smt. Sudesh Bala W/o Shri Budha Ram D/o Shri Birbal Ram Tak
Kumhar, R/o 749 Ward No.32, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Indu Bala W/o Shri Budh Ram, B/c Kumhar, C/o Budh Ram
Verma S/o Lalchand, B/c Kumhar Draftsman, Rajasthan Housing
Board, Division-III, Chopasani, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. GR Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
04/03/2025
The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section
378(4) Cr.P.C. by the appellant/complainant against the order
dated 01.04.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.348/1993, whereby the learned
trial court acquitted the accused-respondent from offence
punishable under Section 494 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.1993, the appellant/
complainant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and
one Budh Ram inter alia stating therein that she is legally wedded
wife of accused Budh Ram and despite having knowledge,
accused-respondent Indu Bala solemnized second marriage with
Budh Ram.
Upon filing the aforesaid complaint, the learned trial court
after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 200
Cr.P.C., took cognizance against the accused Bala Ram and
respondent Indu Bala. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges
[2025:RJ-JD:12237] (2 of 4) [CRLA-365/2000]
under Section 494 IPC. The accused persons including the
respondent deneid the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined its
witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons
including the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
In defence, two witnesses were examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 01.04.2000 acquitted the accused-
respondent from offence under Section 494 IPC. Hence this
criminal appeal against the acquittal of accused-respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that
the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the
accused-respondent from offence under Section 494 IPC, despite
the fact that there is ample evidence against the accused-
respondent for commission of the alleged offence. While passing
the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered
the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right
perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have
been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 494 IPC.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned
trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from the
aforesaid offence. The impugned order of acquittal is just and
proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment
passed by the trial court.
[2025:RJ-JD:12237] (3 of 4) [CRLA-365/2000]
On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has
considered each and every aspect of the matter and also
considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective.
The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-
respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court
has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under
Section 494 IPC.
In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of
Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479,', the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down
parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of
acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",
for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is
a compelling reason for interference. When the trial
Court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc.,the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram
alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602,' the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence
of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has
taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in
appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a
view which could not have been taken by the court of
[2025:RJ-JD:12237] (4 of 4) [CRLA-365/2000]
competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled
canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be
reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal."
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/
revision against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the
other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no
substantial difference between an appeal/revision against acquittal
except that while dealing with an appeal/revision against acquittal
the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his
acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable
one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on
the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has failed
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under
challenge. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed
and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby
dismissed.
The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
125-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
